JUDGMENT 1. - Notices were issued to the respondents to appear in this Court on 26.8.2003. Notices are served upon the non-petitioners. The petitioners sought permission for listing the case in Court on 1.8.2003 by submitting a printed application, which is for listing the cases in Court only without filing any application for preponing the date already fixed in notices sent to the non-petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners straightway submitted that despite service, nobody appeared, therefore, injunction may be granted despite knowing that the notices have been issued to the non-petitioners to appear on 26.8.2003. That too, without disclosing this fact to the Court that he also got preponement of the date without intimating to the other party, straightway submitted that since nobody appeared despite service, therefore, interim order may be passed. When learned counsel for the petitioners asked to argue on the revision petition as this Court issued notices on 12.5.2003 for final disposal, learned counsel for the petitioners argued the revision petition on merit, that too, without disclosing that date for appearance of non-petitioners before this Court on 26.8.2003. 3. In view of such a conduct of misleading the Court and to deprive the non-petitioners from opposing this revision petition, the petition is 20 dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.Petition Dismissed With Costs of Rs. 5000/-. *******